' l sFfti"/"!

:;5;^i,-. ; /, V"tMw;

g^vMc.fkfer'^

Pt^iC'fl

"^ F :\'M

"-P
lSr'v'^"^-*y

: {.if. .-, v*,'.'ii'w,, 'rt'it, 1 , -[-' V'.'i v . !

Umversitv of Chicago
ILi bra vies

.

_/''. i'Jf ("

/* >,> 5,VV^'

STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS

EDITED BY

KIRSOPP LAKE, LITT.D.

AND

SILVA LAKE, M.A.

Ill
A GREEK FRAGMENT OP

TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

PROM DURA

EDITED WITH FACSIMILE, TRANSCRIPTION, AND INTRODUCTION

BY

CARL H. KRAELING, PH.D.

LONDON : CHRISTOPHERS
1935

Already Published:

I. THE EXCERPTA EX THEODOTO or CLEMENT OF
ALEXANDRIA By Robert Pierce Casey

II. EPIPHANIUS DE GEMMIS

By R. P. Blake and Henri De Vis

Volumes in the Press:

IV. THE Visio PATJLI: The Latin Tradition of the Text
from unpublished Mss. By H. T. Silverstein

V. FAMILY II AND THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS

By Silva Lake

Volumes in preparation:

THIRD CENTURY PAPYRI OF ENOCH, ST. MATTHEW, ACTS,
AND AN UNKNOWN WRITER

By H. A. Sanders and Campbell Bonner

THE CAESAREAN TEXT OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

By K. Lake, R. P. Blake, and Silva Lake

THE ARMENIAN VERSION OF THE SERMO MAIOR OF
ATHANASITTS By Robert P. Casey

STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS

EDITED BY

KIRSOPP LAKE, LITT.D. AND SILVA LAKE, M.A.

in

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF
TATIAN'S DIATESSARON, FROM DURA

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

R. P. BLAKE

CAMPBELL BONNER

F. C. BURKITT

H. J. CADBURY

R. P. CASEY

HENRI DE VIS

BELLE DA C. GREENE

H. A. SANDERS

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF

TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

FROM DURA

EDITED WITH FACSIMILE, TRANSCRIPTION AND INTRODUCTION

BY

CARL H. KRAELING, PH.D.

LONDON: CHRISTOPHERS
22 BERNERS STREET, W. 1

CAPE TOWN MELBOURNE SYDNEY WELLINGTON TORONTO

COPYRIGHT 1935, BY KIRBOPP AND SILVA LAKE

PRINTED IN THE 0. S. A.
BY THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

PLATE MADE BY THE MERI0EN GRAVURE COMPANY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. DISCOVERY, DESCRIPTION, PROVENANCE AND DATE ... 3

II. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TEXT 8

III. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE TEXT AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE 11

IV. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE DIATESSARON .... 15

<

V. THE TEXT OF THE DIATESSARON 19

VI. THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE DURA

FRAGMENT 36

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

COMPARATIVE TABLE OF GREEK, ARABIC, LATIN, AND DUTCH
VERSIONS OF THIS PART OF THE DIATESSARON 12

FACSIMILE, TRANSCRIPTION, AND CRITICAL APPARATUS . . At End

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF
TATIAN'S DIATESSARON, FROM DURA

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S
DIATESSARON

DISCOVERY, DESCRIPTION, PROVENANCE AND DATE

Discovery. The fragment with which the following pages deal
is now preserved in the parchment and papyrus collection of
Yale University, at New Haven, Conn., where it is listed as
Dura Parchment 24 (D Pg. 24). It was discovered at Dura-
Europos on the Euphrates on March 5, 1933, in the course of
excavations conducted by Professor Clark Hopkins for Yale
University and the French Academy. The general area from
which it was taken is designated L8 on the key maps of the
excavation, and the particular place is a spot in the shadow of
the western city wall near Tower 18, less than a city block north
of the Palmyra Gate and only a short distance south of the
Jewish synagogue. Judging from its condition and outward ap-
pearance when found, it had been crushed in the hand and
thrown away as a piece of waste paper. But it fell, or was
dumped afterwards, into a great embankment of earth, ashes
and rubbish constructed along the inner face of the western
city wall by the Roman garrison, in preparation for a siege. 1
Here it was protected from the elements by the material heaped
over and around it, by the layer of mud bricks with which the
embankment was covered, and by the desert sand which eventu-
ally covered the whole city. 2

1 The function of the glacis which ran along both the inner and the outer face of
the wall and protected it against mining operations has been briefly discussed by
Count Du Mesnil de Buisson, La Guerre de Sape il y a dix-sept siecles, in L' Illustra-
tion, No. 4718, August 5, 1933, pp. 481-483.

2 Of the non-literary texts found at other points along the wall some have al-
ready been published by F. Cumont, Fouilles de Doura-Europos, 1926, pp. 281-
337; by M. I. Rostovtzeff and C. B.Welles, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Pre-
liminary Report of the Second Season of Work, 1931, pp. 201-216; and by C. B.
Welles, Mtinchener Beitrage zur Papyrologie und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Vol.
XVIII, 1934, Heft 19, pp. 379-399.

4 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

Description. The fragment is a small piece of fairly heavy
parchment, about 9.5 X 10.5 cm., badly frayed or eaten away
at the lower end, and seemingly ripped or cut along the other
three sides. It appears at one time to have belonged to a roll,
for there is writing on one side only. The right margin of the
column of text with which it was inscribed lies well within the
right edge of the fragment, but there are no signs either of
sutures or of another column of text further to the right.
There is no evidence, therefore, to show whether we are dealing
with a piece of a roll written with a series of short columns run-
ning across it, or with one in which a single column ran the
length of the parchment. The analogy of literary rolls of papy-
rus suggests the former, but the custom later followed in writ-
ing liturgical texts on vellum points the other way.

Portions of fifteen lines of text are visible, and fourteen of
these can be read and restored with some degree of assurance,
but so little remains of the fifteenth that its reconstruction
would be mere guesswork. Since the line formed by the left
margin is not entirely vertical to the written text, the number
of letters to be supplied at the left to complete the lines varies
somewhat. The normal number, however, is five. From this
it follows that the width of the column of text was approxi-
mately 10 cm. In some places the surface of the parchment
has been eaten away entirely, leaving no trace of the letters
written there. In filling the lacunae thus created it is important
to note that in the first five lines the letters stand close together,
averaging 30-39 to the line, while in the last nine they are
farther apart and average 26-25.

The text is written in a good book-hand, not without some
grace and vigour. The strokes used in making the letters are
shaded, curved when possible rather than straight, and the
tips are frequently decorated with a small hook or apex turning
to the left. The letters themselves are broad, as nearly as pos-
sible of the same dimension, and widely spaced save in parts of
the first few lines. There are three kinds of alpha, the older
uncial, the transitional, and the third-century cursive type.
Phi and beta are wide and rather angular; mu is characterized
by a deep saddle; upsilon has a high flat top somewhat re-

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 5

sembling tau; epsilon is still carefully rounded, its horizontal
stroke restrained and placed high in the arc which it inscribes.
Sigma is made^in one stroke, its upper part often extending far
to the right, without, however, setting the curve of the letter
askew. Pi varies in width, but its cross-bar is usually very long
and extends far beyond the vertical strokes to left and right.
Kappa and tau seem to be made in two strokes, the second of
which is the right foot of the kappa and the right half of the
horizontal line of the tau. Tau and eta are written as a ligature
in 1. 2. Words are frequently set off from one another by blank
spaces, an extra wide space (13 mm.) marking a paragraph in
1. 3. Abbreviations are indicated by a line drawn above the
letters and by a point following them, placed in the middle of
the line (cf. 11. 3, 10, 13). 1

Provenance. There is no way of telling exactly where the roll
to which our fragment once belonged was written. The natural
presumption, however, favours Mesopotamia, because the con-
tents preserved are so closely connected with Mesopotamia in
use and distribution, and it would be difficult to deny that
scriptoria capable of producing such rolls existed in the Roman
era, at least in cities like Edessa.

Date. In attempting to date the fragment by its script the
natural procedure would be to fall back upon the extensive
body of evidence for the Greek and Latin palaeography of
Mesopotamia which the excavations at Dura have produced.
But this is unfortunately impossible, because, with the excep-
tion of the present text and pieces of a Hebrew prayer-roll as yet
unpublished, the parchments and papyri discovered at Dura
are of the non-literary type. Since fluctuation in the literary
script is far less pronounced than that manifested by business
hands, it is entirely legitimate to fall back upon the Greek
palaeography of Egypt for purposes of comparison. This com-
parison shows that the hand of the Dura parchment is an early
fore-runner of the "severe" or "Bible style" of the fourth cen-

1 I am indebted to my colleague, Prof. C. B. Welles, for instruction regarding
the significant palaeographical facts.

6 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

tury A.D., and that it may safely be assigned to the first half of
the third Christian century. 1

The date which palaeography suggests for the fragment is
confirmed and rendered more precise by archaeology. The
embankment along the city wall, in which the parchment was
found, was constructed after 254 and before 256-257 A.D. Of
these dates the first is that of Dura Papyrus 90, which was
buried under the glacis? while the second is the presumptive
date of the capture and final destruction of the city by Shapur
I. 8 This gives a definite upper limit to the date of the fragment.
What its lower limit may be is more difficult to decide. The
fact that it came from the embankment erected in the very
last years of the city's existence does not forbid an early dat-
ing, for the same embankment has yielded papyri written as
early as 88 A.D. On palaeographical grounds the whole period
back to 200 A.D. must be kept open. It is possible, however,
with but slight help from conjecture to arrive at a more specific
date within the upper and lower limits already determined.

The work of the fifth season at Dura (1931-1932) showed
that between 222 and 235 A.D. one of the wealthier property
owners of the city transformed a part of his residence into a
Christian chapel. 4 It is inherently probable that the roll to
which our fragment belonged was used in the worship of this
sanctuary. This probability is supported by the fact that the
area in which the fragment was discovered is but two city
blocks north of the site of the chapel, 5 which was demolished
to permit the construction of the embankment in which the
parchment came to light. The date of the chapel may there-
fore be taken as the -approximate date of our fragment, which

1 See W. Schubart, Griechische Palaeographie, in Mtiller's Handbuch, I, 4, 1,
Munich, 1925, p. 136.

2 Cf. C. B. Welles, op. cit.

3 See A. R. Bellinger, New Material for the History of Dura, in The Excavations
at Dura-Europos, Preliminary Report of the Third Season of Work, New Haven,
1932, pp. 161-164. The date of the city's capture is determined by the sudden and
complete termination of the otherwise profuse yield of coins.

4 See P. V. C. Baur, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Preliminary Report of
the Fifth Season of Work, 1934, esp. pp. 274-275.

6 The distance between the chapel and the place where the parchment was dis-
covered is approximately 150 meters.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 7

possibly came from a roll ordered by the founder of the church.
If so it was a copy made about the year 222, and though there
is, of course, no evidence as to the place where the archetype
was, it is hard to prevent the imagination from turning to
Edessa.

II

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TEXT

A photograph and transcription of the text of the fragment
are given in columns 1 and 2 of the threefold insertion at the
end of this volume; column 3 gives the necessary critical in-
formation.

The reconstruction of those parts of the text which are either
imperfectly preserved or have disappeared entirely requires but
few words of comment, for the subject matter and the vocabu-
lary are so thoroughly familiar that the lacunae can usually be
filled without difficulty. The following notes are intended to
elucidate the more obscure readings.

I. 1 . The at before ywatiees, in the reading which so drastically
changes the statements of the Gospels concerning the women
who followed Jesus to Jerusalem, is apparently required by the
extent of the space between the K. of /cat and the a of jvvaiKes,
and traces of the letters seem actually to be visible on the
parchment. There is not enough room for aXXat or TroXXat.

I. 2. The beginning of this line might with equal propriety be
reconstructed to read \in TU>]V aKoKovdrjffavr^v. Both reconstruc-
tions are discussed below. The words airb rfjs are written with
ligatures connecting the o, T and 97.

I. 8. The reading (mi is certain. Its interpretation is open to
question. Sraupop and ffcorrjpa suggest themselves at once, and a
measure of verisimilitude attaches to the former because the ab-
breviation of 5 I?7(roi)(s) in 1. 10 is formed by taking the first letters
of the word, instead of the first and last as in 0u in 1. 13. How-
ever, while the abbreviation tr; for 'I77<ro0(s) is sometimes found,
that of cFFa for o-raupos in its various forms is not. Indeed in all of
the texts examined by L. Traube l nothing like it ever appears.
This would not be of great weight if it could be shown that the

1 Nomina Sacra, Munich, 1907, see particularly pp. 56-87. On the early ap-
pearance of ;, for instance in the Epistle of Barnabas, C. 9, see ibid., pp. 4, 115-
116.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 9

writer of the fragment invariably used the initia of words in
abbreviating. But this is not so. From the use of both 0u and
irj we must conclude that he followed current patterns rather
than a fixed principle. In the current abbreviations of crravpbs,
listed by Traube, the one common feature is the preservation of
the p after the initial a as a significant element. The same thing
applies to the abbreviations of awrip. But it should be noted
that in the text of Mark in the Codex Bezae the verb forms oraii-
pa<rov and oravpcoflfl are abbreviated arv and arfj respectively, 1
which lends weight to the suggestion that the era of the frag-
ment is intended to be the abbreviation of ffravpudevra. 2

After ffra- there follows a blank space which indicates the
beginning of a new paragraph.

I. 5. What word we are to restore at the end of this line is not
certain. After eTrtr- there is room for one wide or two narrow
letters; then follows a, then slight traces of another letter; then
room for one (or possibly two) more ; then <r. In transcription we
thus have either eirtT[. .]a[.]<r, 7rtr[.]a[.]<r, or 7rtr[.]a[. .~\<r. The
real problem is what to make of the slight traces of ink following
a. The parchment here shows the tips of two heavy strokes, one
almost but not entirely horizontal meeting another that is verti-
cal at the top of the line of script, with a third very faint stroke
proceeding slightly upward and to the right from the point at
which the others meet. If all three belong to one letter, that
letter was in all probability ir or T, but we have no word to sug-
gest that would fit this reading and the context at the same tune.
It is possible, however, that the heavy stroke coming from the
left toward the vertical one is the end of the preceding a. In this
case the vertical stroke and the one moving to the right are parts
of a p. There is a similar upward extension of the tail of a before
p in the ujirap- of 1. 7. Interpreting the evidence in this way we
can reconstruct 6TnT[v]ir]aQ[a]ff[Kevri], which would fit the con-
text. In the absence of a better suggestion this reconstruction
will be adopted as a basis of discussion. It is not possible to
read 67rt7j[^7r]a/5[a]o-[KU7?], treating im as a misspelling of end.

1 Traube, op. cit., p. 79.

2 Sraupwflefe is a favourite word of Justin Martyr, but there seems to be no in-
stance of 6 ffravpuOels used as a synonym for Jesus.

10 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S D1ATESSARON

The tip of the horizontal stroke following tm clearly stands at
the top of the line of script.

1. 9. There is not enough room between the w of 'IcujV^j and
the second a of aya66s for the inclusion of the avfip which one
might expect at this point. Nor is there any doubt that the two
letters which follow 0,70,065 are 5i-, the beginning of SIKOIOS
rather than /col.

I. 10. The extent of the space before Trj and the appearance
of what is probably the upper tip of a letter at a point 0.2 cm. to
the left of ti? necessitate the reading [ro]y here as before the ab-
breviation in 1. 13.

Between the end of the wj and the right margin of the text
there is a space of approximately 2.5 cm. The upper end of a
diagonal stroke emerges from the hole in the parchment to the
right of Ir/. Beyond the stroke there seems to be a trace of the
upper part of an a, but this is by no means certain. From the
following line it is evident that at least the first two letters of
[KKpvfji]iJ.evos must have stood at the end of 1. 10. But these are
not sufficient to fill the available space. It is therefore suggested
that Kq[TaKeKpviji]iJ.evos should be read here. This would imply
that Tatian had improved upon the text of John in substituting
KaraKpuTrrco for /cpuTrrw but the change is in harmony with con-
temporary developments in the use of the Greek language, and
KaTaKpviTTu appears in Tatian's vocabulary in Oratio, iii.l.

1. 12. The upper left corner of the v of ['Iovdaiu>]v appears on
the parchment between the fissures. The parchment has been
spread by the tear that lies to the right of the K of KOI, for the
lower left tip of the a which follows can be seen at the left of
the gap, immediately after the K.

1. 18. The of $\a<n\eia.v\ is clearly visible in the shred at
the lower left corner of the parchment. OVTOS has been adopted
in preference to auros because of the absence of traces of long
diagonal strokes such as a would probably have left rather than
because of the presence of very definite indications of Q.

Ill

THE IDENTIFICATION OP THE TEXT AND
ITS SIGNIFICANCE

The identification of the fragment as a portion of Tatian's
Diatessaron is by no means difficult. Its subject matter and
vocabulary are patently of Gospel origin, 1 yet the text is
neither a corrupted form of any one of the canonical Gospels
nor an otherwise unknown apocryphal composition, but rather
a "harmony" in which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are
systematically combined. Therefore it must be a fragment
either of the harmony which Theophilus of Antioch seems to
have compiled in preparation for his commentary upon the
Gospels, 2 of a piece -of Tatian's Diatessaron, or of some un-
known work. 3 The importance which Tatian's work had in the
area from which the parchment comes and the general coin-
cidence between corresponding sections of the Arabic, Latin
and Dutch forms of the Diatessaron and the Dura text make it
virtually certain that we have a Greek fragment of Tatian's
harmony.

This very striking coincidence in arrangement is presented
in the accompanying table, where the relevant passages of the
Arabic version in Ciasca's translation, 4 the Latin of Victor
of Capua 5 and the Dutch of the Li&ge manuscript 6 will be

1 Mrs. Susan Hopkins was the first to recognize the importance of the text of
the fragment for Gospel tradition.

2 Jerome, Epist. CXXI, 6, Pair. Lat., Vol. XXII, col. 1020: Theophilus Antio-
chenae Ecclesiae septimus post Petrum apostolum episcopus, quatuor evangelis-
tarum in unum opus dicta compingens, ingenii sui nobis monumenta dimisit. Cf.
Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, Vol. I, 1893, p. 498.

3 The work of Ammonius of Alexandria was probably not a harmony, but rather
what, by way of distinction, we call a synopsis.

* Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmonia Arabice, Rome, 1888, p. 93.

B Codex Fuldensis, ed. E. Ranke, 1868, pp. 156-157.

6 De levens van Jezus, ed. J. Bergsma, Bibliotheek van middelnederlandsche
Letterkunde, Vol. XI, 1904, pp. 206-261. The critical edition of the Dutch text
which D. Plooij is publishing under the title The Liege Diatessaron in the Verhan-
delingen der koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam on the basis of
the Liege, the Stuttgart and other manuscripts, has not reached the particular
passage contained in the Dura fragment.

8,

g

1

s

*

tSJ

I

i
t-

i

Q5 d d o3
2 a:p

lj*d |^
^ OS'S C*2

JT3 <1 P<
g^8
gas

s en gherecht

d

s

3

3

1

.gS
l-g

IiS

0)

^1

*2 QJ 8

1

t
oa

1

s

-C

1

0)

ft

d

1

1

i
1

o
m

i

a)

s
i

OSrrt fl
15 rt S

00 i a

CQ

S3 |

03 fc
t H

S J
I ^

^ 0)

o -d

^3 g

ende en goet man was

1

4)

1

al verholenles

1

>

I

>

$

1

ende hakende was na

noch en consenteerde

1

M
o

4)
1

-s
a

1

w

HS

1

S

C4

P.
u

'S

a

o

n

<u

'53

.s

P

g

o

d

s

-R

y

g
S

1

1

a

45

H

d

rt

z>

g

^

i

fp

9

*

HH

o

g

s

i

1
J

1

,0

1

o

!,

g <
3 g

.1

45

i occultus
erat Ihesu

CD
03

1

-t-5

4)

t/J

.&
s

,0

"o3
1

; actibus eo]

i

I

1

!

1

CO

-J o

a i i
.3 "^

1

S g

pH *^

s .<

a

53

u

!

0)

O

d

s

1

t*-t

o

s

o>

|

1

1

i

s

"3 ^

O* P O

2

a

1

o

a

d
8

1

t-t

S '

S

g

a

s

o)

T3

42

? FH

CO

c3 >

53

1 1

.- P

..

Et cum adventisset vesp
paras
ob ingressum sabbati

B

!

nomine Joseph
dives et decurio

ab Arimathaea civitate

IS

1

43

1
0)

ac discipulus lesu

qui occultabat se

timens a ludaeis
non consenserat autem

consilio et actibus perdi
et exspectabat regnum

8

o

.i

i
11

a
o

g
3

f
ti

1

II

airo Epw/ioflt

2
d

B-

k-

f

a.
1

KaTO.K&fpVfJ.

i
-

B 8

vti - O

Hi

ffeS

ffVVK

po

W

6- I-

S g J?

i- o ^

! I A

a ^ B-

* O s

[13]

14 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

found in parallel columns with the Dura text. Direct quota-
tions from the corresponding portions of the earlier Syriac text
are unfortunately all but lacking. 1 Since it is but a translation
of the Latin, the Old High German version is not of sufficient
importance to merit special consideration.

1 Ephraem's Commentary on the Diatessaron, preserved in the Armenian,
guarantees only the words: Joseph Justus ... in consilio . . . non consenserat.
Cf. Moesinger, Evangelii concordantis expositio, Venice, 1876, p. 266.

IV

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE DIATESSARON

Since the discovery of the Old Syriac Gospels the question of
the original language of Tatian's harmony has provoked not a
little discussion, and two different answers, Syriac and Greek,
have been given. The majority was clearly on the side of the
Syriac during the earlier years of the controversy. 1 Only since
the turn of the century has a genuine tendency to favor the
Greek become apparent. 2 Even today, however, there is no
consensus of opinion on the issue. The fact that the Syriac text
could claim the earliest attestation, being quoted by Aphraates
and Ephraem, has in the past provided a natural advantage

1 T. Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, Forschungen zur Geschichte des nil. Kanons,
Vol. 1, 1881, pp. 18-44; F. Baethgen, Evangelienfragmente, 1885, pp. 58-91; J. M.
Fuller, art. Tatian, Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. IV, 1887, pp. 800-801;
R. Duval, La Litterature Syriaque, 1889, p. 45; J. Rendel Harris, The New Syriac
Gospels, Contemporary Review, Vol. LXVI, 1894, pp. 670-671 and The Diatessa-
ron of Tatian, 1895; J. A. Bewer, The History of the New Testament Canon in the
Syrian Church, 1900, p. 19; A. Hjelt, Die altsyrische Evangelienubersetzung,
Forschungen etc., Vol. VII, 1903, p. 22 ff.; 0. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirch-
lichen Litter atur, Vol. I 2 , 1913, pp. 280-281; H. Leclercq, art. Diatessaron, Cabrol-
Leclercq, Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chretienne, Vol. IV, 1920, col. 758-760;
D. Plooij, A Primitive Text of the Diatessaron, 1923, pp. 76-79.

2 In the period between the discovery of the Old Syriac Gospels and the end of
the nineteenth century Harnack stood almost alone in his defence of a Greek orig-
inal. For his earliest utterance on the subject see his article, Tatians Diatessaron
u. Marcions Commentar zum Evangelium bei Ephraem Syrus, Zeitschrift fur Kir-
chengeschichte, Vol. IV, 1881, pp. 494-495. With this compare his Chronologic der
altchristlichen Litteratur, Vol. I, 1897, p. 289. Since 1900 an increasing number of
scholars has come to favor his position. See particularly F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe, Vol. II, 1904, p. 206; H. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Tes-
taments, Vol. I, 2, 1907, pp. 1536-1537; H. J. Vogels, Die Harmonistik von Evan-
gelientext des Codex Cantabrigiensis, Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol. XXXVI
(1), 1911, pp. 45-46; E. Preuschen, Untersuchungen zum Diatessaron Tatians,
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse,
Vol. IX, 1918, p. 44 ff.; M. J. Lagrange, L'ancienne Version Syriaque des Evan-
giles, Revue Biblique, Vol. XXIX, 1920, p. 326; A. Julicher, Der echte Tatiantext,
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. XLIII, 1924, pp. 166-167; A. Pott, in Preu-
schen-Pott, Tatians Diatessaron aus dem arabischen ubersetzt, 1926, pp. 23-35.

16 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

to the hypothesis of a Syriac original, and various arguments
have been adduced in its favor.

One is that linguistic and cultural conditions in Mesopotamia
required the use of the vernacular, the authority which the
Diatessaron held there from the outset being taken as proof of
its adaptation to local needs.

A second is that even those of the Greek and Latin Fathers
who, like Eusebius and Epiphanius, had heard of its existence
remained unfamiliar with the nature of the harmony, the
strange idiom supposedly acting as a barrier to their further
acquaintance with the book.

A third is Tatian's supposed dependence upon the Old Syriac
Gospels.

To these general arguments have been added others derived
from the Diatessaron's rendering of specific passages of the
Gospels, such as the utterances about the " staff " in Mt. x. 10
and Mk. vi. 8, or the description of the " Syrophoenician "
woman in Mk. vii. 26. Taken together these observations have
led some to conclude that no Greek text of the harmony ever
existed, or that, if it did, it played no part in determining the
available textual tradition, whether Arabic, Latin or Dutch.

The existence of the Dura fragment proves the existence of a
Greek text. Moreover, by giving it an extremely early attes-
tation, it provides the Greek with an even earlier claim to
originality than Aphraates' quotations formerly gave to the
Syriac. Yet the point is one which it would be unwise to press
because the Syriac Diatessaron, though not extant, even if it
be not Tatian's original work, may easily have been as old as
the Dura fragment of the Greek. 1

Much more important for the whole question at issue is the
insight which the excavations at Dura have given us into the

1 It is to be expected that the publication of the Coptic Manichaean documents
recently discovered will provide a new source for our knowledge of the Diatessaron,
for Mani apparently knew the Gospels as one book. Cf . Schmidt and Polotzky,
Ein Mani-Fund in Agypten, in the Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1933, 1, pp. 57-59. If Mani composed his works in Syriac, as seems
probable, his Gospel quotations may well have been taken from the Syriac Diates-
saron, and should furnish a witness to the Syriac text only slightly later than that
which the Dura fragment gives to the Greek.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 17

conditions obtaining in the larger Mesopotamian cities in the
early centuries of our era. Two facts stand out in this connec-
tion. The first is the complexity of the culture-patterns which
governed life where Semites, Parthians, Greeks, and Romans
mingled. The second is the unquestionable importance attach-
ing to Greek as the vehicle of intercourse between representa-
tives of so many nationalities. No better proof of this fact can
be found than that provided by the great number of the Dura
graffiti, which are predominantly Greek even though the proper
names that dot them are very often nothing more than weird
transcriptions of Aramaic. 1 If this condition of affairs could
exist in a city founded by the Parthians and located on the
highroad between Babylonia in the south and Palmyra and
Edessa in the north, it is probably typical of the greater part
of city life in Mesopotamia during the early Christian centuries.
This means that from the beginning there existed a practical
need for a Greek Diatessaron if Christianity was to spread in the
cities of the Mesopotamian lowlands. To this the Dura frag-
ment testifies, and of this a native like Tatian can scarcely
have been unaware. It would therefore seem to follow that even
if he did not originally compose his harmony in Greek, he
would have translated it into Greek almost at once, and so
have issued it in Syriac and Greek from the outset.

Anyone willing to make this admission will find it difficult
to stop here, for it clearly removes all ground for the original
use of the Syriac. It is much more natural to suppose that
since conditions in Mesopotamian cities made a Greek Diates-
saron useful from the beginning, Tatian, coming from a pro-
longed sojourn in the Greek world, and from a period in which
he had probably written Greek almost exclusively, would ad-
dress himself to the by no means simple task of compiling a
harmony by using the Greek language and the available Greek
sources, and would leave the translation of his work into Syriac
to a subsequent stage of the undertaking. The logic of the
situation, as seen in the light of the evidence now made avail-
able, seems to demand that the Diatessaron was originally

1 To obtain a general insight into the conditions obtaining at Dura it is neces-
sary to study with some care all of the Preliminary Reports hitherto published.

18 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

composed in Greek, even if its composition falls into the period
after Tatian's return to Mesopotamia.

To escape from this conclusion it would be necessary to prove
that the Greek of the Dura fragment is a translation from the
Syriac. The particular points where one might most naturally
expect to find evidence of translation are those at which the
text of the parchment differs either from the Greek of the sep-
arate Gospels, or from what one may on critical grounds re-
gard as the true text of Tatian's autograph, or from both. The
discussion of the specific instances of such divergence belongs
properly to another context. All that can be said here is that
though the test of possible mistranslation has consistently been
applied, it has not proven itself of superior value in accounting
for the divergences in question, and has thus left the hypothesis
of a Syriac original without tangible support.

Nevertheless, in any such matter as this it would be unwise
to consider only divergences from archetype and sources. In
by far the largest proportion of its words and constructions the
Dura fragment appears to agree not only with the best critical
Diatessaron text one can construct, but also with the separate
Gospels. Now it is quite probable that a translator turning a
Syriac Diatessaron into Greek would attempt to follow the
wording of the Greek Gospels so far as possible. But in the
fragment before us the agreement with the Greek of the Gos-
pels is so exact, both in vocabulary and constructions, as to
imply a word for word comparison between the harmony and
all its sources, a specific decision concerning the particular
source of each phrase and clause, a painstaking combination
of the words and constructions selected in the process, and a
minimum of editorial emendation. All this is indispensable to
the production of such a text as we have in the Dura fragment
on the hypothesis that it translates a Syriac original, and mani-
festly is far too much to refer to a translator, for it falls little
short of the task which Tatian himself performed. Therefore,
with the Dura parchment in hand it seems hard to escape the
conclusion that Greek was actually the language of the original
harmony. But the merits of the fragment as a witness to the
content of that original is another matter.

V

THE TEXT OF THE DIATESSARON

If Tatian composed his Diatessaron about 172 A.D., as most
scholars assume, the Dura fragment cannot be more than 80
years removed from the autograph. This proximity in time and
the fact that the text of the roll was evidently written by a
practiced copyist give it no small degree of authority. Yet it
would be erroneous to canonize its readings, for in matters of
text the age of a witness is only one of many criteria, and 80
years are not too short a time to allow corruptions to creep into
a line of textual tradition, particularly when, as we must in
this case suppose, new copies were being produced at a rapid
rate. The real test of the textual significance of the Dura frag-
ment lies, therefore, in a comparison of its readings with those
of other witnesses to the text of the Diatessaron.

The extant witnesses to the Diatessaron are the Arabic of
Abulfaradj Abdallah ibn at-Tajjib (Saec. xi), the Latin of
Victor of Capua (Saec. vi), the Liege MS of the mediaeval
Dutch harmonies (Saec. xiii), and the quotations of the Syrian
Church Fathers, especially Aphraates and Ephraem. In the
particular section with which we are dealing quotations from
the Syriac Fathers are unfortunately all but lacking. This
limits the adequacy of the conclusions to be drawn here; for
the Syriac was undoubtedly the oldest and the best of the ver-
sions and if directly attested at this point would furnish the
most acceptable criterion of the value of the Dura text. Limited
as we are to a comparison with the Arabic, the Latin and the
Dutch, our immediate task is twofold, to examine the read-
ings of the Dura fragment in the light of these versions, and
conversely to test the versions in the light of the Dura parch-
ment. But, as a preliminary it is desirable to note the peculi-
arities of the extant versions in the light of the new evidence.

The Arabic. It has frequently been pointed out that the
Arabic version preserves the Syriac Diatessaron in a form

20 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

already corrected in accordance with the text of the Peshitto. 1
The Greek fragment conflrnis in a variety of ways the conclu-
sion drawn from Ephraem's commentary that such correction
had been made.

(i) The comparative table given above shows that the Arabic
version places the clause: non consenserat autem consilio et
actibus perditorum (Ar. at-telldbind) before the words : et exspecta-
bat regnum Dei. This is contrary to the Greek fragment, the
Latin and the Dutch, and can scarcely represent the order of
the original Diatessaron. Nor is it the order of the Old Syriac
Gospels. But it is the order of the text of Luke in Greek and in
the Peshitto. The change embodied in the Arabic at this point
is doubtless in agreement with the best Gospel text; but the
question is whether the influence of this text was exerted di-
rectly by the Greek manuscripts of Luke or indirectly by the
Peshitto. Since the change was apparently effected within the
area of Syriac influence, correction through the Peshitto seems
more probable.

(ii) In its description of Joseph of Arimathaea the Arabic,
like the Dutch, places the words bonus et rectus in a separate
clause : qui erat vir bonus et rectus. In view of the fact that in the
Greek the words stand so far removed from the noun which
they qualify this is a thoroughly natural development, as its
reappearance in the Dutch would seem to indicate. Textual
support for the change is therefore scarcely necessary, particu-
larly in a version composed in a Semitic idiom. Yet the Peshitto
does use the copula in connection with these words, while the
Old Syriac and the Greek Luke do not.

(iii) In rendering noXis (1. 8) by medina, the Arabic is closer
to the IN**?* of the Peshitto than to the 2aba of the Old Syriac
Gospels.

In the last two instances the argument for dependence upon
the Peshitto is plausible, but not absolutely cogent. The
Syriac translator of the Diatessaron was naturally free to choose
his own expressions, and we have at present no way of determin-
ing either how he phrased his translation or what changes were
made in it before the Peshitto existed.

1 So e.g., Burkitt, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 200.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 21

The Latin. As long ago as 1881 Zahn indicated that in the
Codex Fuldensis we have a poorly planned and poorly executed
revision of the Diatessaron in the language of the Vulgate. 1
Coincidence with the Vulgate is evident in the whole of the
passage under discussion, and at least one point illustrates
the revision made in the structure of the harmony. This is the
insertion of the long section Jn. xix. 31-37 into the midst of
the passage which the Greek fragment preserves. That we are
actually dealing with an insertion is evident not only from the
fact that the passage is not found at this point either in
the Greek or in the Arabic, but also from its awkwardness in
the Latin context. Placed where Victor of Capua preserves it, it
tends to separate the first mention of the Marys and the other
women too far from their subsequent reappearance as witnesses
to the place of Jesus' burial. Placed where the Arabic and, we
may assume, the Greek have it, it becomes part of a carefully
constructed narrative in which the harmonist, beginning with
those immediately under the Cross, goes on to speak of those
who stood "at a distance," and having introduced the latter
as witnesses of the crucifixion continues with their testimony to
the burial. We therefore conclude that the Greek preserves the
original order. The reason for the change in the Latin is dis-
cussed below (p. 32).

Comparison of the Latin with the Greek and the Arabic in-
dicates another of its peculiarities. It will be seen from the
comparative table that while the Greek and Arabic regard
Salome and the Mother of the sons of Zebedee as two distinct
persons, the Latin identifies them. Now it is scarcely to be
doubted that that form of text (Greek and Arabic) which dis-
tinguishes the one from the other is more primitive at this point
than that which identifies them. The identification is the result
of further reflection upon the two parallel passages Mk. xv. 40
and Mt. xxvii. 56. 2 Salome was otherwise completely unknown
to Tatian, who therefore introduces the Mother of the sons of

1 Forschungen, Vol. I, 1881, pp. 293-310, esp. pp. 308-309.

2 Origen makes this identification in his Commentary on Matthew. Cf . Migne,
P. G., Vol. XIII, col. 1796. Zahn's contention that it was already known to the
writer of the Gospel according to the Egyptians (cf . his Geschichte des nil. Kanons,
Vol. II, 1890, p. 634) is without foundation in actual fact, for in the passage which

22 A GREEK FRAGMENT OP TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

Zebedee with the other more clearly identified figures, and
before Salome, thus interrupting the order of the Markan list.
This the Greek and the Arabic clearly indicate. The Latin,
however, not only makes the identification, but in this connec-
tion finds it necessary to change the order of Tatian's words,
placing mater filiorum Zebedaei after Salome where, as an
" appositional modifier," this element of the sentence now has
to stand. This order, secondary to that of the Greek and
Arabic on internal evidence, the Dutch also presupposes, even
though it does not identify the two women. The Latin, then,
since it identifies Salome and the Mother of the sons of Zebedee
shows the influence of contemporary exegetical tradition.

The Dutch. The Dutch version, which Professor D. Plooij
has made the subject of special study, is interpreted by him as
a translation of an Old Latin Diatessaron which in turn ren-
dered the (original) Syriac. It would be more than presumptu-
ous to criticize this position on the basis of the one short sec-
tion here under discussion. 1 Yet the passage with which we are
dealing illustrates two noticeable peculiarities of the Liege text.

The first is a general coincidence with the Latin as illustrated
in the introduction of the section Jn. xix. 31-37 into the context
of the Greek fragment, and in the adoption of the order which
places the Mother of the sons of Zebedee after Salome. That
it fails to identify the two women is to be regarded not as a
token of its fidelity to the autograph (witness the change in
order), but rather as the result of its dependence upon a more
advanced exegetical tradition that doubts the validity of such
easy identifications.

The second peculiarity is the introduction of epexegetical
elements into the text, such as that contained in the words die
sine conde hadden ghehat, which lacks all foundation in the
Gospels and in the earlier Diatessaron tradition, and the literal
interpretation of the Latin decurio which is quite foreign to the
sense of the Greek.

Clement of Alexandria cites (Strom. Ill 66) Salome says: KaXSs ow &roij<ra jJ re-
Kovva, not KoXws oCi &v tirotijcra KT\.

1 The reader may refer to Jiilicher's article, Der echte Tatiantezt, JBL, Vol.
XLIII, 1924, pp. 132-171.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 23

The Greek. With the general character and the particular
shortcomings of each of the later versions in mind, it is now
possible to discuss the Greek text as seen in the light of the re-
mainder of the Diatessaron tradition. The reading Zepedaiov KOI
SaX&jM; has already been treated, and the text of the Greek and
the Arabic shown to be more primitive at this point because it
does not identify the two women and places the least well-
known last in the list. It is therefore possible to proceed at once
to the passage Kat at 7wauces T&V ffvvaKd\ovd i r]<ravTa)v aur<3 CLTTO TVJS
FaXiXatas opcocrat rov ora.

In discussing this reading we must consider separately the use
of Lk. xxiii. 49b at this precise place, and the transformation
which the Lukan verse has undergone in the Dura text. Nat-
urally the words must be viewed in the light of their context,
beginning with the Stabant autem omnes noti lesu a longe of
the Arabic.

How widely the various versions of the Diatessaron differ in
rendering the passage under consideration and the section to
which it belongs, the comparative table given above clearly
demonstrates. Yet if we analyse the versions with a view to
their use of the canonical Gospels, omitting for the moment
such complicating factors as the common introduction of the
Mother of the sons of Zebedee from Mt. xxvii. 56 and such un-
important variations as the interchange of lesu and eius or the
introduction of the words die sine conde hadden ghehat, it seems
possible to obtain a clue to the origin of the differences between
them and to the order of the material in Tatian's autograph.
The following table shows the disposition of the source material
in the section under discussion.

Greek Arabic Latin Dutch

(Lk. xxiii 49a) Lk. xxiii 49a Lk. xxiii 49a Lk. xxiii 49a

(Mk. xv 41b?) Mk. xv 41b Mk. xv 41b

Lk. xxiii 49b Lk. xxiii 49b Lk. xxiii 49b

Lk. xxiii 49a-c
Mk. xv 41a

Mk. xv 40b Mk xv 40b Mk. xv 40b Mk. xv 40b

Lk. xxiii 49b

Mk. xv 41b

Mk. xv 41a Mk. xv 41a

Lk. xxiii 49c Lk. xv 49c Lk. xxiii 49c

24 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

Three conclusions can be drawn from this table. First, in the
autograph the section began with Lk. xxiii. 49a; second, at
some point further on there followed the list of proper names
taken from Mk. xv. 40b; third, this list was preceded and
followed by general statements about "the women." Now the
sources at Tatian's disposal provided him with three state-
ments to use in this connection about "the women": Lk.
xxiii. 49b, Mk. xv. 41a, and Mk. xv. 41b. The Arabic places
Lk. xxiii. 49b before and Mk. xv. 41b after the list, adding to
Lk. xxiii. 49b a part of Mk. xv. 41a. The Latin and the Dutch
are basically agreed in putting Mk. xv. 41b first, adding to this
the words airo rfjs FaXiXatas from Lk. xxiii. 49b, and substitut-
ing Mk. xv. 41a for Mk. xv. 41b after the list. But the Dura
fragment, which begins in the midst of the list, puts Lk. xxiii.
49b after the proper names. This would seem to imply that in
its text Mk. xv. 41b stood before them. 1

Why the various statements about "the women" should
change their relative positions so readily is not difficult to
understand when the similarity between the verses used is kept
in mind. The principle in accordance with which the change of
relative position was made is less evident. We submit that in
the transcription of a text which combines the contents of
documents thoroughly familiar of and by themselves, the most
frequent source of error would be the tendency of these several
documents to reassert in the copyist's mind their individuality
and the continuity of their statements. On this principle a
copyist transcribing a section of the Diatessaron beginning with
Lk. xxiii, 49a would be more inclined to move up Lk. xxiii. 49b
from a context later than Mk. xv. 41b, rather than to move it
down. As between the Greek and the Arabic we should there-
fore have to say that the former is the more primitive in its
allocation of Lk. xxiii. 49b. The tendency revealed in the real-
location of Lk. xxiii. 49b in the Arabic is further illustrated by
the Latin and the Dutch when they conflate the two forms of

1 Strictly speaking the list of names in the Dura text may have been preceded
by Mk. xv. 41b, by Mk. xv. 41a, or by both. Of these three possibilities it seems
proper to favor the first, by reason of the support which a text so reconstructed
finds in both the Lathi and the Dutch. The place of Mk. xv. 41a in the section is
discussed below.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 25

text represented by the Greek and the Arabic respectively, and
still further by the Dutch when it insists on bringing up Lk.
xxiii. 49c from the end of the section and joining it to the rest
of the material taken from Luke. It would seem to follow then
that in the autograph of Tatian the elements hitherto con-
sidered were disposed in the order Lk. xxiii. 49a; Mk. xv. 41b;
Mk. xv. 40b; Lk. xxiii. 49b; Lk. xxiii. 49c.

In an earlier section of this discussion we showed that Tatian
had three statements about "the women" at his disposal in
constructing the passage before us. We have given place to two
of them in the original text. What then shall we say of the
third, Mk. xv. 41a? The evidence for its use is excellent, for it
is found in all three versions, but its place in the sequence of
the material is uncertain. The Arabic introduces it before the
list of proper names, attaching it to Lk. xxiii. 49b in which
Galilee is mentioned; the Latin and the Dutch assign it to the
position occupied by Lk. xxiii. 49b in the Greek. If Mk. xv.
41a had a place in the text of this section as constructed by
Tatian, it can have stood in only one of the two positions as-
signed to it by the versions. Which of the two is the more
primitive? Viewing the Latin and the Dutch in the light of the
Greek, it is possible to assume that they have given Mk. xv.
41 a a place after the list of proper names in order to fill a gap
left by the removal of Lk. xxiii. 49b and its conflation with
Mk. xv. 41b. We should therefore be inclined to suppose that
the position assigned to Mk. xv. 41a by the Arabic is the more
primitive. 1 The question now is whether in this position the
verse can be regarded as a part of the autograph?

The Arabic, it will be recalled, places Mk. xv. 41a between
Lk. xxiii. 49b and the list of proper names from Mk. xv. 40b.
It would be difficult to deny that Tatian could not have ar-
ranged the material in this way himself, yet it would be still
more difficult to contend that he did, because of the repetition
of both ciKoXoufleto and FaXiXaia which such an arrangement

1 The alternative is that both Lk. xxiii. 49b and Mk. xv. 41a followed the list of
names in the archetype, and that the Arabic transferred both to a point before the
list, while the Latin and the Dutch transferred only Lk. xxiii. 49b. This is made
quite unlikely by the absence of Mk. xv. 41a from this position in the Dura frag-
ment and the repetition which the juxtaposition of these two verses involves.

26 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

would involve. Since we have assumed that in the Greek Mk.
xv. 41b stood where the Arabic has Lk. xxiii. 49b, the order
Lk. xxiii. 49a, Mk. xv. 41b, Mk. xv. 41a, Mk. xv. 40b has
greater probability. Thus placed Mk. xv. 41a is entirely pos-
sible as a part of Tatian's autograph, and should be so regarded.
The only objection is that of the three statements available to
Tatian two are correlatives, as anyone comparing them would
naturally see at a glance. Since in his disposition of the ma-
terial available for the construction of this section he actually
needed but two of the three statements before him, it would
seem rather peculiar that Tatian should have overlooked the
possibility of saying all that his sources said without repetition,
by omitting one or the other of the three passages in question.
The Latin and the Dutch have actually moved in this direction
by combining Lk. xxiii. 49b and Mk. xv. 41b. But this combi-
nation rests upon a superficial interpretation of the word
ffwaKoXovdeu in Lk. xxiii. 49b, the sense of which is to live or
act as a disciple and not merely to follow from place to place. 1
The real correlatives are therefore Lk. xxiii. 49b and Mk. xv.
41a, not Mk. xv. 41b. From his Oratio, vii. 3 we know that
Tatian was familiar with the pregnant sense of <rwaKo\ovdeca. z
This being so it was entirely possible for him to omit Mk. xv.
41a from his harmony without loss, provided he used Lk. xxiii.
49b, and by so doing to avoid repetition. This, we are inclined
to suppose, was what actually happened. The entrance of Mk.
xv. 41a into the versions may then owe its origin to a superficial
interpretation of Tatian's and Luke's crwa/coXou0ew, which made
it seem that the important detail of the devotion and ministra-
tion of the women expressed in Mark's d^Koveu had been
omitted in the harmony.

If we have correctly interpreted the section of Tatian's har-
mony in the midst of which the Dura fragment begins, its author

1 On the New Testament use of &Ko\ov8ew in this sense see Kittel, Theologisches
Worterbuch, Vol. I, 1933, p. 212 f. I am inclined to agree with Bauer (Griechisch-
deutsches Worterbuch, 1928) that in the passage under discussion owaKoXouflew
shares this technical meaning. Only if Luke used the word in this sense could he
afford to reduce the two statements of his Markan source to one.

2 The word is here applied to those who have given themselves over to the
service of Satan.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 27

has taken Lk. xxiii. 49 as a framework and introduced into it,
after Lk. xxiii. 49a, those portions of Mark xv. 41b, xv. 40b and
Matthew xxvii. 56c which served to give specific content to
its general statements, closing the whole section with the sec-
ond and third elements of Lk. xxiii. 49, 49b and c. From the
structural point of view this is an excellent method and quite
in line with what we might expect from Tatian. The versions
show us a carefully constructed work disintegrating in a very
natural way at the hands of transcribers and translators who
knew the Gospels primarily as separate documents, and were
less skilled in their interpretation of the sense of these Gospels.
It would seem to follow, then, that in so far as it concludes the
section under discussion with what is basically a form of Lk.
xxiii. 49b and c, the Dura fragment is a better witness to Ta-
tian's autograph than the extant versions. When the Dura
text was written the process leading to the structural disin-
tegration of the work had not yet begun.

If in the original text of Tatian's harmony the equivalent of
Lk. xxiii. 49b-c may be said to have stood at the end of the
section dealing with the women who witnessed the crucifixion,
what shall be said of the actual wording which Tatian gave to
this verse? The versions, so far as they furnish precise evidence,
imply that Tatian followed Luke rather closely. The text they
seem to represent is /cat yvvaiKes (?roXXat) at avvaKohovdovcrai
at>r<3 airo rrjs FaXtXatas opcotrat raura. But this proves nothing,
for the clearest part in the whole problem is that both the Latin
and the Arabic have been conformed textually to their respec-
tive Vulgates. The real question is whether the readings of the
Greek are themselves inherently probable or not.

The words rov ora, which the parchment puts in the place of
Luke's raOra, can be dismissed briefly. To regard the reading
as a corruption caused by the mistranslation of an hypothetical
Syriac autograph is quite impossible, for ^Se7 and 2&ai are
too dissimilar in form. An error in the transcription of the
Greek is just possible, for an original ravra might have produced
raff TO, or Tovra, and either of these could conceivably have been
corrected to read rov Wa. Inherently, however, the change
from rov ora to raura is much more probable than that from

28 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

ravra to r6t> <rra. Moreover, Tatian may well have felt it de-
sirable for his immediate purpose to use a more colorful ex-
pression in this context than that which Luke, writing with a
different object, had employed. No one can deny the superior-
ity of "beholding The Crucified" over "beholding these things"
at the end of an important episode in the Passion narrative,
especially in a work intended for devotional and liturgical use.
It would be difficult, under these circumstances, to deny that
the Dura text has a better claim to authenticity at this point
than have the versions of the Diatessaron.

The remainder of Lk. xxiii. 49 as rendered in the Dura text
requires more extensive discussion. There are two possible
reconstructions to be considered: at ywtuKes CK. r&v aKo\ov-
6rjffavT(av avrca /crX., and at yvvaiKes r&v ffwaKoKovOqffavTUv aira>.
The difference between them is primarily a difference of sense,
for if Tatian actually wrote the second, he doubtless intended
it to mean: "the wives of those who had been his disciples
since Galilee."

From the point of view of sense the first of the two recon-
structions is seemingly the easier. It is not so distant from the
meaning of Tatian's Lukan source, and is close enough to the
sense of the versions to provide at least a possible basis for their
readings, due allowance being made for the difference of idiom
and for the influence of the separate Gospels upon the text.
But there are two objections against it; first, Tatian's de-
parture from Luke's avvandKovQiw] and second, the fact that the
women mentioned by name in the context were also "of Jesus'
Galilean disciples," in the wider sense of the term, and scarcely
deserved being set apart from them.

The second reconstruction introduces an unexpected element
into the narrative. That the women not otherwise mentioned
by name, who had come to Jerusalem with Jesus, were actually
wives of disciples is an excellent conjecture and one that makes
thoroughly good sense. Since Tatian is known to have changed
the sense of statements found in the Gospels in accordance with
his own interpretation of them, 1 the possibility that in this
reconstruction we have a correct rendering of the original

1 See Preuschen, Untersuchungen, p. 43.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OP TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 29

Diatessaron cannot be denied. The versions have then turned
back to the text of Luke in fear of Tatian's interpretation. But
here again there is one objection, namely that, if the anti-
heretical Fathers may be trusted, Tatian was an Encratite and
thus probably looked upon marriage with disfavor. His Encra-
tism would, indeed, not have compelled him to deny that some
of the original disciples were married. That was a part of the
record. Yet one may well question whether he would have
introduced the wives of the disciples into contexts in which
they did not appear in the Gospels, though it is true that the
presence of unmarried women among the followers of Jesus
might have shocked a semi-oriental even more.

Since the inherent character of the reconstructions suggested
gives neither of them undeniable claim to authority, the possi-
bility that the text of the parchment is corrupt at this point
must be considered. The hypothesis that the Greek is a trans-
lation of the Syriac, and certain of its readings conceivably the
results of mistranslation, should first claim attention.

Of the two reconstructions offered, at yvvatKes T&V avva-
Ko\ovdr)ff&j>Ta)j> avT& alone affords an opportunity to test the
value of the translation hypothesis. To construct a form of
Syriac text sufficiently ambiguous to have produced both this
reading and that supported by the versions is by no means
difficult. It is tempting in this connection to play with ^2?,
which can have a number of meanings, all depending on how
the verb form is vocalized, and whether daleth is taken as a
relative pronoun or as the sign of a construct relationship.
The difficulty with constructions produced ad hoc for purposes
such as these is that their very ambiguity makes them thor-
oughly improbable as the work of an author composing in a
familiar idiom. As a matter of fact both the Old Syriac Gospels
and the Peshitto render Lk. xxiii. 49 in a completely unambigu-
ous way. Moreover, anyone really wishing to say "the wives
of those who had come with him" would no doubt have written
cftoi ooor ^s2? ^oior? is or something equally clear in mean-
ing. In all probability, then, the hypothetical translator would
actually have to misread his Syriac in order to arrive at the
text of the Dura parchment at this point. Thus the hypothesis

30 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

of mistranslation offers no advantage over that of corruption
within the textual tradition of the Greek itself.

To divine what process of corruption within the Greek might
have produced the parchment's rendering of Lk. xxiii. 49b is
an equally speculative, if not utterly hopeless, undertaking.
Perhaps the simplest conjecture would be that Tatian had
originally used the ywalKes of Lk. xxiii. 49b in an earlier part
of the paragraph about the women, substituting Mark's aXXat
TroXXai for it, 1 and that the Dura text had restored the ywcuKts
to its Lukan context in accordance with the principle stated
above. 2

The difficulty with this and similar conjectures is that they
cannot cope with the gender and case of the participle (ffvv)a-
Ko\ov6rjffavT03v. However we construe it, this form occurs in
our fragment not because of some copyist's error, but because
someone has seen fit to interpret for himself the sense of Lk.
xxiii. 49b. Once this fact has been recognized it becomes evi-
dent that of the two reconstructions offered above, the second
alone deserves consideration as the reading of the Dura text.
In the first reconstruction the only purpose which the departure
from Luke's ffvi>aKo\ov8ov<rai could serve would be to guard
against the misconception that Jesus' followers were exclu-
sively women. This is manifestly insufficient to justify the
change. But if we adopt the second reconstruction with its
drastic change in the sense of Luke, we must also admit that the
authority of the separate Gospels in the later period makes it
extremely difficult to ascribe the change to any other than
Tatian himself.

The words bp&aai TOP ara. mark the end of a section or para-
graph in the roll of which our parchment was a part. This
break the versions of the Diatessaron either lack entirely or
obscure. 3 That the Dura parchment is nearer to the autograph
in this particular will hardly require further proof, for with the

1 Something more definite than Mark's oXXcu 7roXXa may well have been needed
to lead over from the yvoxrrol of Lk. xxiii. 49a to the al <rwavap3.<rai of Mk. xv. 41b.

2 Cf. above, p. 27.

3 Neither the Latin nor the Dutch (if Bergsma's edition of the Liege and Stutt-
gart manuscripts can be trusted) make a stop here. The Arabic shows a clear sense-
division, but does not seem to mark it outwardly.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 31

end of the story about the women witnesses we come to the
close of one episode in the Passion narrative and begin another.
Incidentally, the division marked in our fragment is also found
in the Ammonian Sections. We have here, then, a further
indication of the antiquity of this system. 1

The Dura text opens the section on Joseph of Arimathaea
with an introductory statement of chronological import taken
almost word for word from Luke xxiii. 54. In Luke's own ac-
count the chronological statement concludes the narrative. If
we are to accept the text of the parchment as authoritative, we
must assume that Tatian has transferred the verse to an earlier
context in order to set the stage more effectively for the events
recorded in the story. His point of view in so doing would be
similar to that of Mark, from whom Luke had originally de-
parted. But the question is whether Lk. xxiii. 54 deserves a
place in Tatian's autograph, for it is not found in any of the
versions and is actually followed in the Dura fragment by its
Markan source and counterpart (Mk. xv. 42) unproved in ac-
cordance with Mt. xxvii. 57.

In attempting to answer the question raised we must begin
by concerning ourselves with Tatian's use of Mk. xv. 42. The
Latin and the Dutch imply that the harmony restricted itself
to the use of the opening genitive absolute, 6\f/ias yevo^evrjs,
common to Matthew and Mark. In this they are doubtless
wrong, for the Greek and the Arabic agree in showing that all
of the remainder of Mk. xv. 42 was incorporated. The Greek
text follows the latter portion of Mk. xv. 42 implicitly, save in
one particular, when it substitutes eiri rf) TrapacrKtvy for eirei fy
TrapaffKevri. This reading the Arabic may support, for it con-
strues the word which represents "Friday" with vesper a, not
with venit. If the Arabic and the Greek together make it
probable that Tatian used virtually all of Mk. xv. 42, the same
two witnesses make it probable that the substitution described
had a place in his autograph. But why the change? We submit

1 It should be noted in passing that neither in the space marking the break in
our Dura text, nor at any other point within its body, is there any trace of a system
of symbols showing the sources used, such as Plooij has been tempted to infer from
the manuscripts of the versions. See A Primitive Text, pp. 12-13.

32 A FRAGMENT GREEK OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

that it owes its origin to the juxtaposition of Lk. xxiii. 54 and
Mk. xv. 42. This juxtaposition involves the danger of repeti-
tion, especially in the two statements, fy S 17 ^juepa irapa<TKvr]
and eirel rjv irapa<rKevf]. By reducing the second to a preposi-
tional phrase, Tatian makes it refer back to the previous sen-
tence, and thereby not only avoids the repetition of all but in-
dividual words, but also effectively ties the two verses together.
If this be the correct explanation of the change Lk. xxiii. 54
must have stood in the autograph of the harmony. We should
then have to assume that the versions have omitted it from
their text. In the case of the Latin and the Dutch we have two
indications that such may actually have been the case. The
first is the reduction of Mk. xv. 42 to a mere temporal clause,
the second the introduction of Jn. xix. 31-37 into this context.
These peculiarities of the western versions are apparently in-
terrelated. When Jn. xix. 31-37 with its explicit chronological
statement is made to follow the story of the women at the
Cross, a similarly explicit reference to the imminence of the
sabbath is no longer necessary at the beginning of the Joseph
episode. Hence the severe compression of Mk. xv. 42. But the
transfer of Jn. xix. 31-37 to this context itself requires explana-
tion. May it not have been occasioned by the similarity be-
tween the chronological statement with which it opens and that
contained in Lk. xxiii. 54? If so Jn. xix. 31 can be said to have
replaced Lk. xxiii. 54 in the context. Even the Arabic may
possibly show signs of foreshortening here, for its ob ingressum
sabbati seems to be more than a mere translation or even a
mistranslation of Mark's 6 kanv Trpovapparov. Rather it looks
like a combination of Mk. xv. 42c and Lk. xxiii. 54b. 1 The
versions, we therefore conclude, are not in a position to oppose
the Dura text effectively when it opens the section on Joseph
of Arimathaea with Lk. xxiii. 54 and Mk. xv. 42 in that order.
From TTpoo-ij'Xdev avdpanros to the end of the fragment the
Dura text follows the wording of the Gospels so closely and

1 Mark's o m irpo<ra/3l3aTov naturally reduces itself to the clause "which is
before the sabbath" in Syriac, thereby losing its significance in the eyes of an
Arabic translator who is forced to render irapa.aK.evi) by "Friday" or "Day of As-
sembly," and thus inviting combination with Lk. xxiii. 54b.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 33

stands in such real accord with the versions of the Diatessaron
that there is every reason to regard it as being in fundamental
agreement with Tatian's autograph. This agreement over by
far the greatest portion of the text should effectively discourage
any attempt to belittle the value of the fragment by reason of
the deviations possibly contained in the first few lines. Further
comment here is required only for a very few trifling diver-
gences in the order, use and orthography of words.

The order of the elements 7rpo<re5exero rrjv pao-iKeiav and
oik %v o-wKararefle/iews has been already considered above. 1
There is no question but that the Greek preserves the origi-
nal sequence. The Arabic, which has changed the order in
this particular, is probably also at fault in the reallocation
of 6vofj,a 'luffytj). This rearrangement is opposed by the Greek,
the Latin and the Dutch, and can readily be explained as the
result of a natural tendency to continue from " there came a
man" 2 with the words "named Joseph." This is the way
Luke (xxiii. 50) phrases his own statement. But Tatian seems
at this point to be combining Matthew xxvii. 57 with Luke
xxiii. 50, and Matthew describes Joseph's station and place of
residence before giving his name.

In their description of Joseph, the Greek and the versions
disagree in two minor details. The Greek is satisfied to call
him a councillor. The Arabic adds "rich," the Latin and
Dutch "rich and noble." The shorter reading is naturally
preferable in such an instance, particularly as the term "coun-
cillor" implies that the man had a high social and financial
standing. The Greek, having finally mentioned his name, de-
scribes Joseph as 0,70,005 Skates in a rather awkward way. The
awkwardness lies in the distance separating these adjectives
from the noun (avdpwiros) they qualify, and in the absence of
the conjunction between them. The versions agree in supply-
ing the conjunction 3 and in introducing a correlative of the

1 See above, p. 20.

2 So far as the Arabic is concerned, the Greek text can have read either foOpuiros
or ivfip.

3 The absence of the conjunction from the Arabic is idiomatic rather than
textual.

34 A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON

noun qualified. This the grammar of the sentence would seem
to require. However, there is excellent support in the manu-
scripts of Luke for the omission of avrip before and /ecu after
0,70,00$. The parchment may therefore be correct in its ren-
dering. 1

There are two instances of departure from Gospel standards
in the preference given to verbs compounded with preposi-
tions. The first is the substitution of irpovfjKQev for riKBw, the
second that of Ko,Ta/ce/cpi;ju/iei>os for Ke/cpujujuews. Both may safely
be ascribed to Tatian even though the versions of the Diates-
saron naturally afford no evidence of their use. The second
has already been commented upon. 2 The former is quite in
line with what the sense of the passage both here and in the
Gospels demands, for Matthew and Luke, having introduced
Joseph, resume the thread of actual narrative with the com-
pound Trpoffe\d&j>, while Mark uses darjKQw.

The only other point of any importance is the form in which
the name Arimathaea is rendered in the parchment by Epw-
naQaia. This is absolutely unique in the textual tradition of
the New Testament as well as in that of the Diatessaron. Yet
it is not entirely inexplicable. Basically it illustrates that same
uncertainty that appears in so many proper names taken over
from Hebrew, as to .the doubling of a medial consonant. 3 In
the transcription of NTDT the Dura fragment follows one
practice, the New Testament manuscripts another, the latter
being the more correct from the Semitic point of view. The
form which the parchment exhibits probably arose from
'Apijujuaflala by the change of unaccented a to c before p, 4 and
by the dissimilation of the first ju. The latter change produces
the effect achieved by the non-assimilation of v in the vernacu-

1 The Arabic is clearly inferior in referring to Joseph as a disciple "who hid
himself" in fear of the Jews.

2 See above, p. 10.

3 Cf. TajuAiofl and TaM<i0 in the Codex Alexandrinus in III Kgs. xxii. 20 and
I Kgs. xxx. 27 as the transcription of DIDI, and the fluctuation between mamona
and mammona in Mt. vi. 24 of the Old Latin codices.

4 See J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. II, 1919, pp. 65-
67. Cf. also 'EpfftaO as a rendering of HD") in Codex B of III Kgs. iv. 13.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 35

lar of the day. 1 'Epwpadaia is therefore nothing more than a
vulgar form of 'Apwadala. It is strange only because we have
not seen it before. 2

1 Ibid., pp. 104-105.

2 Tatian is apparently correcting Luke when he describes Arimathaea as a
"city of Judaea" rather than as a "city of the Jews." The correction takes cogni-
zance of the fact that at the time of the events narrated Judaea was already being
administered by Roman officials.

VI

THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE
DURA FRAGMENT

The real nature of the Gospel text that Tatian used in com-
piling his Diatessaron is one of the perennial problems of New
Testament textual criticism. The contribution which the Dura
fragment can make toward its solution is slight indeed, partly
because it is so small and partly because the passage it pre-
serves is conspicuous for the absence rather than the presence
of striking variants in the manuscripts of the separate Gospels.
This makes it impossible to connect its text definitely with any
one specific family of codices. The following points may, how-
ever, be noted : 1

(i) The fragment twice agrees with B sah against everything
else:

1. 1 (Lk. xxiii. 49) add al ante yvvalKes

I. 9 (Lk. xxiii. 50) om noi inter ayados et SIKCUOS

Either of these might be an accident, but that this rather rare
and often significant combination should be found twice in ten
lines occasions thought, especially since B sah represents Alex-
andria and Egypt, not Mesopotamia and Rome,
(ii) The fragment has two agreements with D :

I. 4 (Lk. xxiii. 54) fjv 8e ft fiftepa irapaffKevrj pro Kal Tjjuepa r\v

irapaffKevf] [vel -775]
I. 9 (Lk. xxiii. 50) om Kal avrjp

The first of these is also found in Syr S and the second in T and
the European Latin, but their possible importance is dimin-
ished by the absence from the fragment of much more striking
Bezan readings, notably irpb <ra/3/3drou for irapaa itevrjs, and irplv
(rafipaTOV for Trpocraf3/3aTOV.

(iu) The fragment has two agreements with Syr S. First,
Syr S shares with D the reading jjv 5e 17 rmepa for /cat ^/zepa jjv,

1 A full critical apparatus to the text is given at the end of this volume.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 37

and secondly, it describes Arimathaea as a "city of Judaea"
instead of a "city of the Jews." In this it is supported by
other Syriac authorities and by b vg, but the importance of this
reading is diminished by the fact that the fragment does not
agree with the Syriac reading Ramtha for Arimathaea. Tatian
and Jerome may well have emended "Jews" to "Judaea"
merely from a desire for historical accuracy. 1

(iv) The fragment nowhere agrees with the Ecclesiastical
text, but it has one reading, the omission of K<U before aa^arov
in 1. 4, which is found in none of the more generally admired
manuscripts but only in APrAII al pier sah. The recurrence of
the Sahidic is noticeable, but the 1 variant can scarcely be re-
garded as of primary importance and may be a pure accident.

The foregoing analysis of the Dura fragment shows that it
belonged without doubt to a copy of Tatian's Diatessaron, and
that it preserves its text with a relatively high degree of fidelity.
Of its excellence there are two simple indications : first, the
close agreement of its wording with the text of the Gospels as
Tatian probably knew them, and second, the small proportion
of genuinely indefensible and improbable readings it contains.
More important, however, is the fact that with the Greek
fragment before us, the vagaries of the individual versions of
the Diatessaron become exceptionally clear and assume a
definite recensional character. In this respect it entirely sup-
ports the conclusions drawn by Burkitt and others from the
quotations from the Diatessaron in the Commentary of
Ephraem. 2 The Dura fragment thus gives us our first glimpse
of the actual text of the Diatessaron before it was affected by
the growing demand for conformity to ecclesiastical standards
and authority. In this its importance for our knowledge of
the Harmony will doubtless continue to be seen.

1 It should be noted that the Dura fragment uses the full form of Mk. xv. 42
found in the Greek manuscripts and not the short form found in Syr S.

2 See especially F. C. Burkitt, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 206.

FACSIMILE OF DURA PARCHMENT

.iiSkll:iK.::;a^'^^il

*^iKfl!iP-"

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

TRANSCRIPTION

[fe/?e5]AIOY KAI CAAUUMH K[a]l A

cry]NAKOAOY0HCANTUJN A[>]U

C-yoJuXaJAC OPUUCAI TON CTA.

[ij i>ii*pjk TTAPACKEYH CABBAT

o]YIAC AE TENOMENHC ETTI
O ECTIN TTPOCABBATI

] ANePUUTTOC BOYAEYTH

oJTTO EPINMA0AIA[ S ] 7T[ ]
[tou5at]AC ONOMA IUJ[cr^] A[->
[/caws] UJN MA0HTHC [ro]Y FF

[KPU^MENOC AE AIA TON 4><

[wuaiw]N KAI AYTOC TT

TOY 0Y-

1C TH

!v...vV-v ; . <..! ; .- '...vv ,-' :H-s.->v-,-;r \ ;^'.a ';'' ''-ftn-wi;

,' ".j"~ >"-;;; "tfi 1 ^^-'-^ fa'rfi ^u

. .*' - *!' .-- -*< '-J -'

COMPOSITION AND APPARATUS CRITICUS

| Kal SaXcojir) I Kctl -yuvaiias

2 at {rwaKoA.ou$OTj(rai avrtf diro T^S

3 FaXiXaCas opwcrai raaJTa | Kat

4 T)|ipa TJV Trapao-KeuT/s Kat o-dppaTOV 4ir&|>co-

5 trKv | 6x|/(as 8 'Y VO I A ^ V1 1S | 7ret TJV Trapaar-

6 Kevy, '6 CTTI irpoo-Apparov |

7 yXdev avOpwiros TrAowtos | POV\UTTJS tnrdpxv

8 dtro 'ApijU,a0aias | -ntfXetos TO>V

9 'louSatwv | TovvofJia 'Iwo-T]<|> | avrjp a/yaOos Kat 8(-

10 KCUOS | WV |ltt0T|TY]S TOV 'T.t\<TOV KC-

11 KpV|H|U,evos 8e 8id TOV

12 'lovSaCwv | Kal aviros I

13 TT|V pacriXeCav TOV Oeov, | OVTOS OVK

14 T|V (TWKaTaTe^ei/xevos Tfj

Mt xxvii 56 | Mk xv 40 | Lk xxiii 49b-c

Lk xxiii 54

Mt xxvii 57 | Mk xv 42

Mt xxvii 57 | Lk xxiii 50
[Mt xxvii 57] | Lk xxiii 51
Mt xxvii 57 | Lk xxiii 50
Jn xix 38

Mt xxvii 57 | Lk xxiii 51b
Lk xxiii 51a

N. B. Readings in boldface are those of the Fragment.

1 Lk xxiii 49 yvvameff NADL cet omn, at "yuvatKecr B sah 2 at (rvvaKohovBovcrai NBCLRX al pauc,

KoXovBriffaa-at. ADPFAIIG al pier , TWV o*\jvaKoXov8i]<ravT(ov 3 raura codd omn, TOV o-Tavpu0VTa

3 f Lk xxiii 54 at ^pepa i\v KBCL al pier, /cat t\ yuepa t\v A. fam 13 al pauc sah arm, tjv Se T| ijiupa D c syr S
NBC*L fam 13 a b C e 1 q Vg, jrapao-Kvtj AC 2 PXAAII unc 8 al pier f f Eus, irpo cra/3/3a7ou D,
syrr 4 KO.I BC*L9 fam 1 fam 13 33 al pauc lat boh syr SOP (Hard c obel.) arm Eus,

om /cat AC 2 PXrAAn unc 8 al pier sah 6 Matt xxvii 57 8e codd omn exc A*, om 5e A* Mk xv 42

evret t]v irapaa-Keini Codd omn exc A, eireiS-n) /c.r.X. A, eirt n\ irapao-KUT] 6 irpocrappaTov KB*CKMA9II* fam 1

69 33 al permu, irpoo- ffa^arov AB 3 EGHLrn 2 al plus 50, -irpiv ffa.ppa.Toj> D 7 Matt xxvii 57 t]\Qev codd
omn, irpoo"nX9ev ir^ovcnoo- codd omn et Tatar fuld ; om 8 Lk xxiii 51 [vel Matt xxvii 57] opt;ua0eia<r in

evang singulis codd gr nonnulli apet- et -Oeidff habent, ramtha (2Sbob) syrr et syr hlmg in Matt xxvii 57
sed non Tat ar fuld , epiv|j,a0aia(r 8f Lk xxiii 51 TUJ> tovSaiav codd gr omn, TTJO- tovSaiao- b vg syr SCI

Tat ar fuld 9 Matt xxvii 57 rovpona codd omn exc D, TO ovo^a. D, ovojia Lk xxiii 50 avrjp B AAAn

unc 8 al pier Tatar f uld ^ Kai a vrjp ^CLX 33 al pauc, om Dr a b e ff q. 9f aya^oo- /cat 5t/caioo- codd omn

exc B sah, a^aOoor StKaioo- B sah StKatoo- /cat aya0o<r syr SO lOf Joh xix 38 KeKpvmj.ei>ocr codd omn,

Ka.Ta.KKpv|j.[ivo(r 12 Lk xxiii 51b irpoo-eSex^TO, ocr irpocreSexeTo NBCLD lat e ur sah boh, otr Kat, irpoa-eSexeri

T fam 13 , /cat TrpocreSexero syr SOP Tat ar ned ocr /cat aurocr irpofffSexero KllMPUX al pauc, ocr TrpocreSexero /ca
aurocr fam-1 33 Tat fu l d al pauc, ocr /cat Trpoo-eSexero /cat auTocr AEFGHA9 al pier $- 13 Lk xxiii 51s

ABPr0A(n) unc 8 , o-\j-yKaTaTi9(i.vo<r NCDLXA fam 1 fam 13 28 al pauc

V^' I/'/'- "

. r

/ 143 776 ,.

pf

f)f\ I 3 * _^^^

A> _^^ri^H^I